Glass Health vs Tortus
A detailed comparison to help you choose between Glass Health and Tortus.
🏆
Verdict: Tortus wins
Tortus scores 4.3/5, edging out Glass Health at 3.7/5. NHS trusts and ICSs procuring an ambient clinical scribe with regulatory coverage, published safety data, and direct EHR write-back — especially those on Epic, Oracle Health, EMIS or SystmOne.
Glass Health AI for clinical decision support | Tortus AI-powered healthcare efficiency and EHR optimization | |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 3.7 (1 review) | 4.3 (1 review) |
| Pricing Model | freemium | paid |
| Starting Price | Free tier available | From $99/mo |
| Best For | Physicians, residents and nurse practitioners who want cited differential reasoning and plan drafting alongside an ambient scribe — especially solo users comfortable with the terms, or practices willing to sign the BAA and buy Max for EHR integration. | NHS trusts and ICSs procuring an ambient clinical scribe with regulatory coverage, published safety data, and direct EHR write-back — especially those on Epic, Oracle Health, EMIS or SystmOne. |
| Free Tier | ||
| API Access | ||
| Team Features | ||
| Open Source | ||
| Tags | free tier | team featuresgdpr compliantapi access |
| Visit Glass Health → | Visit Tortus → |
Glass Health
Pros
- + Differential diagnosis with per-item reasoning and openable citations — in my testing it surfaced considerations I had missed, not paraphrases of my prompt
- + Real-time clinical prompts (follow-up questions, differential ideas) appeared mid-encounter while the note drafted in the background
- + Public pricing with a genuine free tier: $0 / $20 / $90 / $200 per month at time of writing, no sales call required
- + Independent evidence exists — two studies beating ChatGPT on defined tasks, plus the Harvard-Stanford ARISE NOHARM benchmark covered by Forbes (March 2026)
- + Specialty modes and 62+ scribing languages make it usable outside US-English primary care
Cons
- - Individual Terms of Service authorize training models on the patient data you enter and allow sale of de-identified data; the BAA is opt-in, not automatic
- - Lite and Starter are ad-supported — sponsorships appear inside a clinical tool
- - EHR integration (Athena, Epic, eCW, Elation) is Max-only at $200/month, gating the main workflow payoff
- - Usage caps on lower tiers are described only as "limited" or "standard" with no published numbers
- - No prospective patient-outcomes study; it is decision support, not a diagnostic device, and remains clinician-verified
Tortus
Pros
- + Published safety evidence: hallucination-check layer verified against the transcript with a 75% reduction in major hallucinations reported in npj Digital Medicine — rare transparency in this category
- + Direct Epic and Oracle Health integration with context-aware launch from the patient chart and signed notes written back to the EHR, not copy-paste exports
- + UKCA Class IIa medical device with ISO 13485, ISO 27001, Cyber Essentials Plus, DTAC and DSPT — the most regulatory coverage I found among UK scribes
- + Third-party evaluated outcomes: documentation time halved and 47 minutes back per shift at St George's (GOSH DRIVE for NHS England); 15,000 more appointments/year projected at Royal Devon
- + Published G-Cloud pricing (enterprise £200,000/year incl. 100,000 audio hours, £44/licence/month small pilot) lets procurement model cost before a sales call
Cons
- - No self-serve path for small clinics — everything routes through NHS trust procurement or the X-on Health partnership; smallest pilot caps at 20 licences and 1-2 departments
- - G-Cloud pricing documents carry conflicting validity dates (offers valid to 31/03/2025 vs G-Cloud 15 live from 7 Sept) — current figures need confirming in procurement
- - Template customisation is more limited than some competitors despite per-specialty templates
- - UK-centric: built around NHS governance and UK record systems with no documented private-practice PMS integration
- - Clinical performance claims rest on published evaluations and vendor documentation — there is no way for an individual reviewer to test the device in a real consultation
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is better, Glass Health or Tortus?▼
Tortus scores higher at 4.3/5 vs 3.7/5 for Glass Health, making it the better-rated option in our comparison.
What is the difference between Glass Health and Tortus?▼
Glass Health: Glass Health is a clinical AI assistant for doctors and other clinicians, giving answers and decision support grounded in current medical evidence to help with diagnosis and patient care. Tortus: TORTUS is a clinical AI assistant used in NHS systems that writes consultation notes automatically while the clinician talks to the patient.
Is Glass Health or Tortus more affordable?▼
Glass Health starts at €0/mo, Tortus starts at €99/mo. Check the comparison table above for current pricing.
Stay in the loop
Get weekly updates on the best new AI tools, deals, and comparisons.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.